Sensitivity, Vulnerability, Power in Research By Riya Solanki

The session indulged in the question of how researchers can engage with sensitive topics, vulnerability, and power when working with disabled people.

This session eventually highlighted the need for having sensitivity, especially with regard to research involving the people of the disabled community who have been historically treated as people with deficits and dependents rather than being looked at from the lens of people carrying the broach of responsibilities and functions too. They have been treated poorly and have been excluded due to the existence of the 'deficits,' according to society, which would require some sort of cure or intervention in order to make them applicable to work and indulge in such fields. These paradigms, which attempt to answer the questions regarding reality and concepts, often have neglected the community of disabled people by not recognizing their skills and treating them as people who will depend on them, someone who will be more passive than active. The very question, which made our room interesting and made everyone indulge in the discourse of how researchers can ethically make them feel included whilst being aptly sensitive with the topics and vulnerabilities and power whilst working with them, thus showcasing not only the theoretical understanding but also highlighting the actions too. The session delves into ethics, equality, justice, and mostly the fundamentalities of our rights wherein we as researchers shall not look down and exclude but rather be more inclusive and delve into human minds to procure the good for our paradigms. 

My essay is exploring the constituents of "sensitivity," "ethics," "research," and "ethics," wherein critical interrogation of the concept of vulnerability alongside the analysis of power that exists and how this power can be suppressed or made less intimidating as well as analyzing power dynamics inherent in research relationships and working on reflexivity and positionality shapes ethics and its outcomes in practice and studies. I have come across critical disability studies, feminist studies, and critiques as well as participatory methodologies wherein I give out that ethical research with disabled people requires moving beyond procedural compliance and more towards accountability, proper communication, awareness, and commitment towards equality and justice. 

While being in the session, one thing was apt: there is a single holistic definition of sensitivity; however, McCosker et al. (2001) highlighted that it can be divided into 3 broad categories, which are topics that are private and sacred to oneself, topics that might cause fear and stereotype, and lastly, topics that carry a sense of fear of political threats and scandals that might cause social conflicts. One of the important key parts is that it is not predictable, as research that appears harmless might generate vulnerability and offense amongst the communities on whom it was conducted. As Lee (1993) shows, sensitive research is that which "poses a substantial threat to those who are or have been involved" (p. 4). This sentence highlights that the nature of sensitivity is not just a topic but also lies in the researchers' interaction between researcher and participants as well as the context and intention. Even a study by Pinto et al. (2022) argued that researchers should not shy away from sensitive topics but should engage with them sensitively. 

When talking about vulnerability, it is very important; however, it remains poorly conceptualized and understood as well as is frequently applied in ways that are both over-inclusive and under-protective. The definitions of vulnerability or vulnerable participants such as disabled people, children, prisoners, and those with mental health conditions showcase that vulnerability is an inherent characteristic of certain individuals or groups. A study by Findley et al. (2024) gives useful findings and conceptual definitions on inherent vulnerability (arising from individual characteristics), situational vulnerability (produced by particular circumstances), and research-induced vulnerability (created or exacerbated by the research process itself). A rights-based, agency-focused approach recognizes and establishes that disabled people aren’t just passive people and recipients but also active people who do aim to provide their own interests and views as well as issues and solutions for those issues. The disability rights principle "Nothing about us without us is for us" encapsulates this demand for self-determination and challenges research practices that speak about disabled people without meaningfully including them (Charlton, 1998). In my view this reframing doesn’t mean abandoning concern for protection but rather relocating it. Ethical research with disabled people requires attending to how social structures such as ableism, poverty, inaccessible environments, and more create conditions of vulnerability while recognizing and supporting participants' capacity for agency. Researchers must ask not only "How do I protect vulnerable participants?" But "How does my research practice either challenge or reproduce the conditions that make people vulnerable in the first place?"

The concept of power, wherein the relation of it with research is unavoidable in research. It is the researcher who determines the questions, venues, methods, and interpretation as well as gets to decide what happens with the data collected. This leads to the birth of asymmetries, especially when working and researching marginalized groups, including disabled people, who have historically been subjected to research that served institutional rather than community interests. Given (2008) distinguishes between "power to" (the capacity to act) and "power over" (the ability to dominate or control), as well as organizational, individual, and cultural dimensions of power. Attempts to disrupt these power imbalances, which pre-exist, include participatory and co-produced approaches wherein disabled people are involved as partners throughout the research process, from defining questions to disseminating findings. However, as the presentation slides note, these approaches are "not a panacea" wherein the power asymmetries cannot be simply dissolved through methodological choices but require ongoing critical attention. I would like to add that power operates not only between researchers and participants but also within social structures like institutions, publishing conventions, and much more that shape what knowledge is valued and how it circulates. 

Reflexivity can be understood as a critical and non-biased critical reflection consciously, which would then affect their conscious actions (Freire, 1972). It is quite essential, as, whilst doing research and to maintain ethics, one must reflect on their actions and how they can improve them and reduce their own biased actions. As researchers, while doing study, they bring in their assumptions, experiences, and social positions, which would inevitably shape how they are framing the questions, method, interaction, interpretation, and much more. Dwyer and Buckle (2009) encourage researchers to "embrace and explore the complexity and richness of the space between" (p. 62). Researchers may share certain identities or experiences with participants while differing in others, and these alignments and disjunctures shift across the research process. The sessions throughout the study offered one of the most useful guiding questions, which was “What is my relationship with this community?" “What assumptions do I bring about disabled lives?” “What privileges do I carry?" “How can I center disabled people's expertise?" “How will I make myself accountable?” These are not questions with fixed answers but invitations to ongoing ethical work.

Institutional research ethics processes, wherein ethics committees, approval forms, and consent procedures emerged historically in response to notorious abuses in medical research, including the Nuremberg trials and the Tuskegee syphilis study. While these do provide a safe space and safeguards, they do carry their own limitations, such as Kara (2018) describing research ethics committees as frequently top-down, bureaucratic, and focused on institutional protection rather than participant well-being. The saying "do no harm" sets a low threshold for ethical practice. Indigenous research ethics traditions offer alternative frameworks emphasizing relational accountability, communality of knowledge, reciprocity, and benefit-sharing principles that foreground the research journey as important as the destination (Wilson, 2008). Ellis (2007) describes relational ethics as involving researchers acting with "hearts and minds," acknowledging personal bonds, maintaining respect, and sustaining relationships beyond the research encounter.

Lastly, to conclude my essay, I would like to present how the vitality of ethics with sensitive topics, vulnerability, and power when researching with disabled people demands more than technical skill or procedural adherence. It requires a critical orientation that questions taken-for-granted categories, attends to structural conditions, and remains accountable to the communities whose knowledge and experiences are at stake. It is important for the researchers to recognize and ensure that sensitivity is contextual and relational as well as that vulnerability is often produced rather than inherent and that power asymmetries cannot be simply wished away but must be continuously negotiated. Reflexivity and positioning matter most to ensure the ethics, as these pose researchers with core competencies and values.

References 

Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.

Chhabra, G. (2020). Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.696

Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105

Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947

Findley, M. G., Ghosn, F., & Lowe, S. J. (2024). Vulnerability in research ethics: A call for assessing vulnerability and implementing protections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(34), e2322821121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322821121

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin.

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications.

Kara, H. (2018). Research ethics in the real world: Euro-Western and Indigenous perspectives. Policy Press.

Kelly, S. E. (2010). Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall, & R. de Vries (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research (pp. 307–326). SAGE Publications.

Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. SAGE Publications.

McCosker, H., Barnard, A., & Gerber, R. (2001). Undertaking sensitive research: Issues and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-2.1.983

Minatti, A., & Nicole-Berva, A. (2025). Rethinking vulnerability in disability research: Structural and relational perspectives. Disability & Society, 40(2), 215–233.

Pearce, L. D. (2010). Mixed methods inquiry in sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 829–848.

Pinto, A., Rodriguez, A., & Smith, J. (2022). Researching sensitive topics in healthcare. Evidence-Based Nursing, 25(2), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103501

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. SAGE Publications.

UK Research and Innovation. (2026). Research with potentially vulnerable people. Economic and Social Research Council. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/research-with-potentially-vulnerable-people/

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.